 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT PRODIGY PLAINTIFF INFRINGEMENT UNITED STATES INTERNET DISPLAY COURT ACTS YORK TELECOMMUNICATIONS PORTION HYPERLINKS BRITISH LAWS BUSINESS ENTITLING PRACTICES SELL INDUCED INFRINGEMENT ENJOINING RELIEF DECLARING AWARDING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS DISTRICT KINGDOM PROPER INVENTOR TECHNOLOGY |
1
I L-b 1.b
Robert F. Perry (RP 9841)
Benjamin Hershkowitz (BH 7256)
Larissa A. Rippa (LR 73 13)
KENYON & KENYON
One Broadway
New York, New York 10004
(212) 425-7200
Attorneys foi Plaintiff
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICr OF NEW YORK
NORTHERN DIVISION
BRITISH TELECOhMUNKATIONS PLC,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. OO-CIV-
PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS
CORI'OFWTION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
COMPJ,w
PlainliEs British Telecommunications PLC ("BT"), for its Complaint ofpatent infhngement
against defendant Prodigy Communications Corpomtion ("Prodigy"), alleges as follows:
-h
THE PARTIES
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
DECISION AND ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INTERNET PRODIGY INFRINGEMENT INFRINGE CENTRAL COMPUTER COURT MARKMAN SUMMARY JUDGMENT WEB SERVER LAW SECOND PORTION EQUIVALENTS SUBSCRIBERS MATTER COMMUNICATE REASON WAH REPORT AMENDMENT HTML FILE FIRST PORTION MARKMAN OPINION REMOTE TERMINALS PROSECUTION HISTORY UNITED STATES PLAINTIFF REFERENCE CLAIM LIMITATIONS WEB BROWSER CITING BHAKTA DEP |
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC,
Plaintiffs,
00 Civ. 9451 (CM)
- against -
DECISION AND ORDER
PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
McMahon, J.
Plaintiff British Telecommunications ("ET") asserts that Defendant Prodigy
Communications Corp. ("Prodigy"), through its business activities as an Internet Service
Provider ((?SP"), directly infringes claims 3, 5, 6, and 7 (the rLAsserted Claims") of U.S.
No. 4,873,662 (the (`Sargent Patent" or "`662 Patent"). BT also alleges that Prodigy
contributes to infringement by Prodigy subscribers who infringe the Sargent patent by
the Internet through the Prodigy service.
The Court has already construed the claims of the patent in its Markman Opinion.
Telecommunications PLC v. Prodigv Communications Corp., 189 F. Supp. 2d 101 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) ("Markman Op."). Prodigy now moves for summary judgment of non-infringement under
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the reasons stated below, I fmd that as a matter of law, no jury could find
infringes the Sargent patent, nor that Prodigy contributes to infringement of the Sargent
nor actively induces others to infringe that patent. I therefore grant Prodigy's motion for
summary judgment.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
